I don't believe I ever questioned their motives, I'm sure they want safe outdoor recreation like everyone else. However, I think it's perfectly justify to challenge their record. 0 for 12 when it comes to efforts to obtain funding is horrendous. Furthermore, it doesn't appear they put in a whole lot of effort into other funding sources. I'm coming to that conclusion because A) They have provided no details or backup to their argument that they tried really hard twelve times, and B) I can think of several better ways to get the money off of the top of my head, even though I'm super late to the discussion.

Why don't we just charge the AMC an extra $500K for their "special use" permit. The details on that organization are kinda vague. Their annual report doesn't drill down into details like I wish it would. But the eyeball test tells me that a huge chunk of their $25Million in annual revenues has to come from NH, while their website only claims to maintain a few hundred miles of trails (out of a total of thousands) within the granite state. I'd really really really like to see the AMC's spending and revenue by state. So if anyone has any inside info, I'd appreciate it. What I suspect is happening, is that a private organization is allowed to pimp out NH forests to acquire Boston dollars that can then be used to fund outdoor recreation in NY/NJ. But that's just my suspicion.

Another idea would have been to ask local businesses to provide discounts. You know those coupon books that cost $25 but contain $250 in coupons? Seems like F&G could have found some time to make a few phone calls to a few chambers of commerce instead of putting all their resources into lobbying for 12 pieces of legislation that ultimately became toilet paper. You'd probably sell alot more hike-safe cards if they came with 10x more in discounts. That one is SOOO friggen obvious that it's beyond belief that it's not in existence. The only explanation is a lack of effort.

Another idea would be to replace F&G leadership with someone who can win at least 1 out of 12 battles.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. It's ok to impugn failure.

Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:04 pm

Granite Guy

Hiking Forums Are My Crack

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:37 pmPosts: 7137Location: Exeter, NH

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

BrianL wrote:

Getting back to politics now. To take the stance that the lost/injured should pay for their own rescues then I can only assume that you are presuming the position that the state/fed is maintaining the trails and forests out of the goodness of their hearts. Like, you believe that the state was nice enough to leave that land undeveloped and you're showing your gratitude by not looking the gift horse in the mouth and asking for more amenities.

So in that regard, S&R should be a service, provided by the gov't because it helps to maintain an asset owned by the gov't

@GG - I think if you look at it in that regard, you'll see that it's not socialist/communist thinking. Furthermore, I think your understanding of those concepts is a little glib. Everyone paying for everyone is not socialist if what you're paying for benefits everyone equally. The "essence of socialism" as you put it, is not about cost sharing, it's about redistribution of wealth. From each according to his means, and to each according to his needs....or something like that.

That, is communism or Marxism I believe. IIRC from college 20 years ago socialism is the idea that if everyone works then everyone prospers equally and reaps the same benefits. they receive equal earnings, medical care and other benefits. Look it up, then tell me who's glib. And that, by the way, is exactly what you are saying, almost word for word here... "Everyone paying for everyone is not socialist if what you're paying for benefits everyone equally" and it is about the farthest thing from what the most right wing person you know should be believing.

As we've already demonstrated we could toss this back and forth all day. We may have a lot more in common than differences but on this issue we are almost exact opposites. I don't believe that just because the government opens up some piece of land to us (that is owned by all of us collectively to begin with) they are under any obligation to provide 100% of the services people think they may need, especially for free. They aren't opening up "their" land to us, they are keeping "our" land open and free for all to use. People of their own free will decided to use said land in any number of manners. They are responsible for themselves, their actions and their safety. Simple as that. Personal responsibility for you and your own actions. That is a right wing libertarian position.

The federal government also owns the interstate highways. If you crash their car while on them you are not entitled to free medical help from them. You are not entitled to free towing and auto replacement/repair. And taking from everyone to provide for everyone no matter how you choose to view the programs it is funding is socialism/communism. They call them social programs for a reason, and it isn't because people get together and socialize. I think it's because it's a form of socialism to take from everyone and redistribute to whoever the government feels like giving it to. I'm not saying there aren't good, worthwhile social programs out there, just that in essence they, as well as rescuing dumb hikers for free is just a form of socialism. Glib? Unclear? I don't believe so.

Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:30 pm

BrianL

Mountaineer

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:36 amPosts: 115

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

I'm not going to debate the nuances between socialism and communism. For the purposes of this argument, they are the same thing. Just for kicks, I DID look it up, and the definition for one says "social ownership of the means of production" and the other definition says "democratic control of the means of production". So if you want to split those hairs, you're on your own.

GG - you seem a little too appreciative of the government's providing outdoor recreation. I think you perceive it as an amenity provided by a generous government for the enjoyment of it's citizens. And that's a great thought, and I know it's what they taught us in middle school social studies classes. But they lied to us man. If the forests didn't attract restaurant patrons, hotel guests, shoppers, and money to the area then the government would put up a big 'ol sign that say "NO TRESPASSING". They wouldn't want the expense, or the liability, of keeping that stuff open for "fun". And you won't get very far saying "I'm a citizen, I can go anywhere the government owns"

Trails are open because they make money. If they make money, then that money should be used to keep the trails open. It's not hard to see that trail dollars are directly benefiting dozens of towns with tens of thousands of citizens. Why should the trail user have to pay even MORE if he befalls unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances while participating in the Recreational money making machine.

This is where the concept of "everyone paying for everyone" comes in. You're confusing it with "everyone paying for an individual in need". There is a difference. Every man woman and child between Concord and Canada benefits from the money that is attracted to the state through recreation. Every man woman and child is benefited when more money is brought into the region. A policy that intimidates and threatens hikers does not help to attract money to the region. It does the opposite, and that hurts everyone. So everyone, should be paying for the policies and services that benefit everyone. When it comes to free rescues, the folks benefited are every man woman and child between concord and Canada.....not just the individual "dumb hikers".

And that's where we need to come together GG. You keep using the phrase "dumb" hikers. Throughout this thread I've used the term "unlucky". I never said I'm against charging people who act especially stupid. If you put rescuers at risk, and consume resources, because you knowingly did something unreasonable, then something bad should happen to you. I can get behind that idea. A flat rate "stupid fine" seems to make the most sense to me. Charging for a rescue is kind of arbitrary since the cost of the rescue isn't always commensurate with the degree of stupidity demonstrated. You go up a peak with an auto road and run out of water.....your rescue costs a few hundred bucks. You break your back and need a chopper rescue and it costs 25K. Does the size of the bill necessarily tell you who screwed up worse? I don't think that model fits with your code of personal responsibility.

You really go off the rails when you talk about the highways. You're trying to paint me as this super-socialist by suggesting that providing a road also means providing towing, medical care, and all the extras. I'm not saying rescued hikers should get free hospital stays and a new pair of shoes, but come on man. If you get in a car accident, highway patrol WILL come and help.

Please just tell me how a S&R'er is different from a fireman

Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:30 am

Granite Guy

Hiking Forums Are My Crack

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:37 pmPosts: 7137Location: Exeter, NH

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

BrianL wrote:

I'm not going to debate the nuances between socialism and communism. For the purposes of this argument, they are the same thing. Just for kicks, I DID look it up, and the definition for one says "social ownership of the means of production" and the other definition says "democratic control of the means of production". So if you want to split those hairs, you're on your own.

good idea not to split hairs. There are many different branches for both, but you are talking about the means of economic production above and that is not the part we are talking about here.

GG - you seem a little too appreciative of the government's providing outdoor recreation. I think you perceive it as an amenity provided by a generous government for the enjoyment of it's citizens. And that's a great thought, and I know it's what they taught us in middle school social studies classes. But they lied to us man. If the forests didn't attract restaurant patrons, hotel guests, shoppers, and money to the area then the government would put up a big 'ol sign that say "NO TRESPASSING". They wouldn't want the expense, or the liability, of keeping that stuff open for "fun". And you won't get very far saying "I'm a citizen, I can go anywhere the government owns"

again, the government doesn't provide anything. Recreation is just there. You don't seem to get that. The private citizens running the campgrounds, motels, restaurants, gift shops and attractions keep people coming back. The beauty and enjoyment of nature is what drew people to the mountains to begin with. People built it up. Private citizens built the first hiking trails. Then, the government saw an opportunity to move in and take money from all those people and control the private enterprises. They were way late to the party, and when the government needed to "create" jobs and restrict certain businesses from destroying the forests they started monitoring and maintaining them on behalf of the rest of us. There's is plenty of federal and state owned government land out there that does nothing for anybody economically but it's still open to you if you want to use it. They certainly do not post it all NO TRESPASSING if it's isn't making money.

Trails are open because they make money. If they make money, then that money should be used to keep the trails open. It's not hard to see that trail dollars are directly benefiting dozens of towns with tens of thousands of citizens. Why should the trail user have to pay even MORE if he befalls unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances while participating in the Recreational money making machine.

This is where the concept of "everyone paying for everyone" comes in. You're confusing it with "everyone paying for an individual in need". There is a difference. Every man woman and child between Concord and Canada benefits from the money that is attracted to the state through recreation. Every man woman and child is benefited when more money is brought into the region. A policy that intimidates and threatens hikers does not help to attract money to the region. It does the opposite, and that hurts everyone. So everyone, should be paying for the policies and services that benefit everyone. When it comes to free rescues, the folks benefited are every man woman and child between concord and Canada.....not just the individual "dumb hikers".

And that's where we need to come together GG. You keep using the phrase "dumb" hikers. Throughout this thread I've used the term "unlucky". I never said I'm against charging people who act especially stupid. If you put rescuers at risk, and consume resources, because you knowingly did something unreasonable, then something bad should happen to you. I can get behind that idea. A flat rate "stupid fine" seems to make the most sense to me. Charging for a rescue is kind of arbitrary since the cost of the rescue isn't always commensurate with the degree of stupidity demonstrated. You go up a peak with an auto road and run out of water.....your rescue costs a few hundred bucks. You break your back and need a chopper rescue and it costs 25K. Does the size of the bill necessarily tell you who screwed up worse? I don't think that model fits with your code of personal responsibility.

im using the term dumb because that's basically who we are talking about getting a bill for their rescue. We have pretty much agrees that truely unlucky hikers won't or at worst may not get a bill. So I'm not taking about the unlucky ones.

You really go off the rails when you talk about the highways. You're trying to paint me as this super-socialist by suggesting that providing a road also means providing towing, medical care, and all the extras. I'm not saying rescued hikers should get free hospital stays and a new pair of shoes, but come on man. If you get in a car accident, highway patrol WILL come and help.

i think they are right on the same line. if you say both are provided by the government, since you seem to think they provide recreation and forest for us , to benefit the masses and run the economic engines of the country. If you believe they need to provide all the services associated with the public using government provided properties they are exactly the same. If you get in a car accident yes they will show up to help you, but if you require medical attention or rescue from your accident you get a bill. It's not a free service provided just because they provide the roadway for you.

Please just tell me how a S&R'er is different from a fireman

I've discussed the fire/police services already. You need to be able to get around safely and not get mugged going to the grocery store. There are certain things in the constitution the government is required to do and protect us from enemies bit foreign and domestic is one of them. Fires need to be put out so the entire block or city doesn't burn down. Those are benefits to everyone. Rescuing a negligent/reckless hiker does not benefit everyone. Sure it's a service offered to everyone if they go out and be stupid/reckless, but it benefits a relative few. A few that in my opinion should be paying for themselves. Asking everyone else to pay for their stupidity or lack of responsibility is wrong. Asking private businesses as you suggested earlier through discounts is also wrong. Well, maybe not totally wrong but it too is left wing, so until you slide over to the personal responsibility, less reliance on the government bailing you out side for nothing and giving everyone else but yourself a bill for your rescue I'm revoking your card as the most right wing person you know!

Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:14 am

BrianL

Mountaineer

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:36 amPosts: 115

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

You own an ice cream stand near a beach owned by the government. I own an ice cream stand near a different beach, owned by the government. Let's take talent and quality out of it and assume we both get our ice cream from the same supplier.

The only difference between our two ice cream stands is that we're stationed at different, government owned beaches.

Your beach, has a lifeguard on duty. My beach has a sign that says "Swim at your own risk"

Which of our ice cream stands makes more money?Which of our ice cream stands pays more in taxes (as a result of making more money)?

So is the lifeguard there to save bad swimmers? Or is the lifeguard there to stimulate the economy?

Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:54 am

Granite Guy

Hiking Forums Are My Crack

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:37 pmPosts: 7137Location: Exeter, NH

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

BrianL wrote:

You own an ice cream stand near a beach owned by the government. I own an ice cream stand near a different beach, owned by the government. Let's take talent and quality out of it and assume we both get our ice cream from the same supplier.

The only difference between our two ice cream stands is that we're stationed at different, government owned beaches.

Your beach, has a lifeguard on duty. My beach has a sign that says "Swim at your own risk"

Which of our ice cream stands makes more money?Which of our ice cream stands pays more in taxes (as a result of making more money)?

So is the lifeguard there to save bad swimmers? Or is the lifeguard there to stimulate the economy?

Assuming all other things are equal personally I'd go to the one with the nicer beach. I'm guessing you go to the one with the life guard. I can swear this on my kids lives. I have been to beaches/lakes/rivers etc swimming hundreds of times in my life. Not one time have I ever chosen where to go based on whether or not their is a lifeguard/safety net on duty.

We're getting into complete hypotheticals now and it is again/still clear we have different philosophies on what the government does and owes us. Any more questions or situations you can come up with you can answer for me based on this. I think we all have free will and can make our own decisions in this country. We either prosper or suffer the consequences of those decision. Nobody is making anyone do anything in this life and nobody should stop anyone else from seeking happiness in their life unless it hurts someone else to do so. You need to be accountable for yourself and your actions in many ways, including financially. The government owes us nothing other than the basics required by law and certain social welfare programs. Nobody wants to see kids starving, freezing to death, uneducated or in need of basic medical care for example. And, while I won't look a gift horse in the mouth and say "I'm not using the trails other built but nowadays the government helps maintain" I don't feel they are required to provide recreation and I don't think it's the government that keeps the economic engine of the country turning. If they have no good reason to keep the public off publicly owned property it should be open to all to use and enjoy responsibly, and while on it you are responsible for yourself. They can be nice and have an army of volunteers and trained professionals save your butt if you hike up Tuckermans after a blizzard, ignoring the billboard sized Avalanche warnings at the start of the trail and then need to be rescued from an avalanche, but they sure don't need to do it for free or worse yet sent the rest of us the bill.

Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:27 pm

BrianL

Mountaineer

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:36 amPosts: 115

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

Granite Guy wrote:

Assuming all other things are equal personally I'd go to the one with the nicer beach. I'm guessing you go to the one with the life guard. I can swear this on my kids lives. I have been to beaches/lakes/rivers etc swimming hundreds of times in my life. Not one time have I ever chosen where to go based on whether or not their is a lifeguard/safety net on duty.

That's a dodge, and a bad one. It was very clear that my question assumed all variables, including beach nice-ness, were equal. Besides, I didn't ask you which you would go to. I asked you which of our ice cream stands would make more money.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to gamble with your kids' lives. Advertising affects everybody. Sports stadiums will paint visiting locker rooms pink. I'll bet that even you, the champion of accountability, make 1000 decisions a week using unconscious stimuli that you don't even realize. Is it possible, maybe just a little bit, that your mind was somehow put just a little bit more at ease because there is a big white tower with a big red cross stationed in the middle of the sand?

Even if you really are made of Granite, zoom out a little bit. Is it possible that even one person might be affected? That's one more ice cream cone that your shop sells.

Is it possible that there is are parents out there that are merely adequate swimmers, and might feel safer taking their kids to a guarded beach? Under the Granite Guy administration, those folks should stay home, right? Well if they did, you wouldn't sell four more ice cream cones to that couple and their two kids. Maybe there is a SAR officer who broke his leg saving an exposed hiker. Maybe he decides that his kid shouldn't have a crappy summer just cause he's in a cast, and takes the kid to a guarded beach. Two more ice cream cones sold.

So it's nice to say that everyone SHOULD think entirely for themselves and assume all of their own risks all of the time, but it's not realistic. The aforementioned unconscious phenomena become tangible movements when applied to large populations. So if you ever want to become Governor Granite Guy, you're going to need a serious reality check when it comes to the psychology of the masses.

Tue Jan 12, 2016 1:16 pm

Granite Guy

Hiking Forums Are My Crack

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:37 pmPosts: 7137Location: Exeter, NH

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

BrianL wrote:

Granite Guy wrote:

Assuming all other things are equal personally I'd go to the one with the nicer beach. I'm guessing you go to the one with the life guard. I can swear this on my kids lives. I have been to beaches/lakes/rivers etc swimming hundreds of times in my life. Not one time have I ever chosen where to go based on whether or not their is a lifeguard/safety net on duty.

That's a dodge, and a bad one. It was very clear that my question assumed all variables, including beach nice-ness, were equal. Besides, I didn't ask you which you would go to. I asked you which of our ice cream stands would make more money.

Im not dodging. I gave you my answer. You did not say the beaches were identical. You said different. If everything is equal, who knows. Who bothers reading if a lifeguard is on duty when buying ice cream? Maybe some people don't like the idea of a lifeguard watching over their shoulder while they eat ice cream. Go commission a study and let me know. You go to the one with a lifeguard, I'll go, assuming all is equal, to the most convenient one to me.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to gamble with your kids' lives. Advertising affects everybody. Sports stadiums will paint visiting locker rooms pink. I'll bet that even you, the champion of accountability, make 1000 decisions a week using unconscious stimuli that you don't even realize. Is it possible, maybe just a little bit, that your mind was somehow put just a little bit more at ease because there is a big white tower with a big red cross stationed in the middle of the sand?

Right, so now we are all brainwashed and unable to think anything out clearly in our heads. I get unconscious stimuli part but if that always worked the same on everyone there'd be a lot of empty beaches and hiking trails as soon as the lifeguards went off duty or people saw the sign stating you can be billed for rescue. It can have limited influence on people's decision making but it's just a part, not the final say. Everyone perceives those stimuli differently anyhow. And, I don't gamble with my kids lives. We get them their floats and arm floats and life jackets or whatever and keep a close eye on them and go in the water with them. So thanks for the parenting advice, but I would rather rely on myself and my wife making sure my kids are safe than someone sitting in a lifeguard stand I've never met and don't know if they're paying any attention whatsoever.

Even if you really are made of Granite, zoom out a little bit. Is it possible that even one person might be affected? That's one more ice cream cone that your shop sells.

so this will be the last post in this discussion with you since you're taking it down to making pointless remarks about screen names. And in case it went over your head like everything else seems to from right to left the name was just a play on the state symbol, you know, the guy made of granite in my avatar.

Is it possible that there is are parents out there that are merely adequate swimmers, and might feel safer taking their kids to a guarded beach? Under the Granite Guy administration, those folks should stay home, right? Well if they did, you wouldn't sell four more ice cream cones to that couple and their two kids. Maybe there is a SAR officer who broke his leg saving an exposed hiker. Maybe he decides that his kid shouldn't have a crappy summer just cause he's in a cast, and takes the kid to a guarded beach. Two more ice cream cones sold.

all that is possible. It's also possible some people don't want a lifeguard watching over them for whatever reason and they go to the other beach. And in the real world all things are not equal, so it really doesn't matter that much and I'm not interested in debating hypothetical ice cream sales

So it's nice to say that everyone SHOULD think entirely for themselves and assume all of their own risks all of the time, but it's not realistic. The aforementioned unconscious phenomena become tangible movements when applied to large populations. So if you ever want to become Governor Granite Guy, you're going to need a serious reality check when it comes to the psychology of the masses.

I don't know why anyone would ever want to run for goveroner and have to listen to people keep saying they want all kinds of things for nothing because they feel it's in everyone's best interest. Of course it is I who need the reality check. You are the only correct one dealing with reality. Oh wait, you are actually the only one who wants a free ride if you ever need rescue here. Unless I missed it everyone else said if they are ever deemed reckless and have to pay for their rescue they assume that responsibility. So, in reality you are on your own here. Peace. Out.

Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:11 pm

BrianL

Mountaineer

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:36 amPosts: 115

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

Quote:

Right, so now we are all brainwashed and unable to think anything out clearly in our heads. I get unconscious stimuli part but if that always worked the same on everyone there'd be a lot of empty beaches and hiking trails as soon as the lifeguards went off duty or people saw the sign stating you can be billed for rescue. It can have limited influence on people's decision making but it's just a part, not the final say.

It doesn't always work. And it doesn't work the same on everyone. But you're admitting that there is some kind of effect from those unconscious stimuli. Now multiply that tiny effect by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who are served by the states beaches. 1,000,000 people times a .01% change that there decisions is influenced, equals 1,000 more potential ice cream customers.

And re: empty beaches and hiking trails. We established earlier in the thread that it's too early to tell if this warning will change hiker behavior. But I think if everyone had to guess if the impact is positive or negative....I think the consensus would be negative.

Quote:

Everyone perceives those stimuli differently anyhow. And, I don't gamble with my kids lives. We get them their floats and arm floats and life jackets or whatever and keep a close eye on them and go in the water with them. So thanks for the parenting advice, but I would rather rely on myself and my wife making sure my kids are safe than someone sitting in a lifeguard stand I've never met and don't know if they're paying any attention whatsoever.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not impugning your parenting abilities. I was referring to statements that you made stating that you are conscious of every factor involved in your decision making, and then guaranteeing the accuracy of those statements by offering your kids' lives up as collateral. I'm sure you and your wife exercise fine beach safety. Come on man, chill out a little bit. Same goes for the business about your screen name. I was referring to your claim of a purely logical, fact-based, decision making process. I understand the origin of your screen name. But you don't have a monopoly on puns.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that the purpose of gov't owned recreation facilities is NOT to provide recreation. Those who believe that are communists. In a capitalist society, the role of gov't owned recreation facilities is to enhance commerce. The goal is to make the recreational facilities more attractive so more people come and more people buy ice cream. If you make them less attractive....it's reasonable to expect the opposite effect.

We can say some people don't want a lifeguard over their shoulder. We can say some people like the tough as nails code of personal responsibility in the White Mountains. But be serious for a minute and admit those sentiments are in the extreme minority, and any policy taking those into account would be absurd.

I'm not saying that the government should pay for rescues because it should be ok for folks to be negligent. I'm saying the gov't should pay for rescues because it helps generate more tax revenue for itself while simultaneously enhancing commerce in the area. Threatening the stupid could easily deter those who are simply over-cautious. It's my belief that loss is greater than the cost of rescues, so if we have to foot the bill for the occasional idiot , then I'm ok with that, because it's profitable, not because it's socialist.

Tue Jan 12, 2016 2:38 pm

JustJoe

Hiking Forums Are My Crack

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:39 amPosts: 5664Location: Not Mass 8)

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

I'm just curious. Is this a, *War of Attrition*?

_________________Adventure is not a race. - Unknown

Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:21 pm

BrianL

Mountaineer

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:36 amPosts: 115

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

JustJoe wrote:

I'm just curious. Is this a, *War of Attrition*?

If changing hearts and minds were easy, everyone would do it.

Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:29 pm

Granite Guy

Hiking Forums Are My Crack

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:37 pmPosts: 7137Location: Exeter, NH

Re: Clarify Hike Safe for me please

He wins. I quit! Of course I have nothing to lose. I'm just fine with the way things are.

BrianL wrote:

We can say some people like the tough as nails code of personal responsibility in the White Mountains. But be serious for a minute and admit those sentiments are in the extreme minority, and any policy taking those into account would be absurd.

If those are the extreme minority then everyone here other than you is the extreme minority. I'm done with ice cream and life guards hypotheticals. In reality this policy isn't stopping anyone from hiking in NH. The trails are as packed as they've ever been. Nobody has ever said I'm going to hike in Vermont instead because they'll rescue me for free, and, I don't even know if they will. I do know Baxter is in high demand and always booked solid too. Here's their warning sign...

I find that the direction of this discussion to be counterproductive. I have been unable to visit this site as much recently. I joined this site as a beginner hiker and enjoyed the knowledge and friendliness if this online hiking community. Let's get back to hiking talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum